214 
PACIFIC SCIENCE, Vol. XIV, July I960 
same questions that the Forsters and King raise 
about the pre-European origin of the causes of 
what are regarded as either degenerate or primi- 
tive traits in the Polynesian dog. Neither Fitz- 
inger nor Smith had specimens to study. 
Among the peculiar traits of the Polynesian 
dog were its inability to bark, its predominantly 
indolent disposition (except perhaps in New 
Zealand), its erect ears, long back, short and 
crooked legs, comparatively large head with 
small eyes, and pointed muzzle. More interest 
has been shown in identifying the presence of 
these traits in mongrels believed to contain na- 
tive strains than in determining the origin of 
the traits. The traits (except perhaps the lazi- 
ness) when present, whether in dogs of Poly- 
nesia or of other parts of the world, are called 
primitive; that is, they are regarded as traits 
shared with the wild ancestor of the dog what- 
ever it is thought to have been, whether wolf, 
fox, or other animal. Sometimes these same traits 
are called degenerate; the implication occa- 
sionally is that degeneration has occurred from 
a more advanced form toward the primitive 
form. Both the idea of primitiveness and of 
degeneracy toward primitiveness seem to be 
mixed in the views of the Forsters and King. 
That the same perhaps is true of the views of 
Smith and of Fitzinger, although the former 
refers to degeneracy and poor breeding and the 
latter speaks of acclimatization, is suggested by 
their famous contemporary’s discussion of the 
origin of breeds among dogs. 
Charles Darwin (1897, I: 40) writes of the 
deteriorating effects of diet and climate on im- 
ported dogs, which have led to their "reversion 
to a primordial condition which many animals 
exhibit . . . when their constitutions are in any 
way disturbed.” Darwin also considers the effect 
of what are now called mutations: 
Some of the peculiarities characteristic of the 
several breeds of the dog have probably arisen 
suddenly, and, though strictly inherited, may be 
called monstrosities; for instance, the shape of 
the legs and the body in the turnspit of Europe 
and India. ... A peculiarity suddenly arising, 
and therefore in one sense deserving to be called 
a monstrosity, may, however, be increased and 
fixed by man’s selection . . . the most potent 
cause of change has probably been the selection, 
both methodical and unconscious, of slight in- 
dividual differences, — the latter kind of selec- 
tion resulting from the occasional preservation, 
during hundreds of generations, of those in- 
dividual dogs which were the most useful to 
man for certain purposes and under certain con- 
ditions of life. 
Pictures on Egyptian monuments from about 
3400 B.C. to 2100 B.C. show dogs, he points 
out, which include a turnspit with short crooked 
legs resembling the existing variety. He also 
refers to a description of an Indian pariah dog 
with similarly short, crooked legs. Such legs are 
common enough in various animals, Darwin 
finds (1897, I: 17), so he rejects the Egyptian 
counterpart of the "monumental animal as the 
parent of all our turnspits.” In other words, a 
breed like the turnspit, sometimes compared 
with the Polynesian native dog, might arise 
through mutations more than once in differ- 
ent parts of the world. However, the latter- 
day genetical studies on dogs by C. R. Stockard 
(1941) have shown that the achondroplasic fac- 
tor is dominant in inheritance. Therefore, the 
dogs with the deformed-looking bandy legs and 
peculiar muzzles pass on these traits by Men- 
delian laws of inheritance to their descendants. 
When achondroplasic features inhibit natural 
functioning, the breed becomes extinct. 
Mongrels in native Polynesian villages that 
exhibit peculiarities reminiscent of those the 
native dog is thought to have had are generally 
assumed to have some native-dog ancestry. The 
possibility that at least some of these mongrels 
might be mixtures only of European breeds that, 
through degeneration or mutation, have come 
to duplicate independently the primitive or de- 
generate traits of the native dog has not been 
considered, except perhaps with the regard to 
the trait of nonbarking. All howling wild dogs 
are not kin to the indigenous dogs in breed, for, 
according to common knowledge, European dogs 
which become feral may lose the ability to bark 
and resort only to howling. They recover their 
bark if they return to a domesticated life. 
C H. Smith (1845, XIX: 210) writes of 
what he calls the poi dog ( C. Pacificus ) , the ilio 
of the Hawaiians and the uri-mahoi of the Tahi- 
tians: "In form this variety bears marks of de- 
crepitude: the head is sharpened at the muzzle, 
the ears erect, the back long, the limbs crooked; 
